Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Pedagogy 2.0

While reading Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software by Catherine McLoughlin and Mark J. W. Lee on Innovate, I was struck by the use of Pedagogy 2.0. I had never heard this term and certainly was intrigued by its use. I did a quick Google search and discovered a delightful presentation by Gabriela Grosseck from Romania speaking about Pedagogy 2.0. In her presentation, she speaks about the potential of meeting the needs of today's students and their ability to customize their own education. She suggests students should be asking what kind of education they want, does web 2.0 represent a major conceptual or paradigm shift, and will web 2.0 improve our pedagogy.

I find this absolutely fascinating as they were the same questions we were asking in the early 90's with web 1.0. With web 2.0, just as with web 1.0 and pre web 1.0, we needed to have the students be responsible for their own education, Dewey's mantra "learn by doing." Now that I have dabbled with technology for some time, I am finding that what I do with my CyberSchool scholars is a sort of web 2.0. It is different from CyberEnglish, web 1.0, in that I was still around and guiding. In the new environment of CyberSchool, I am not hovering as much and the responsibility of education is more learner centered. I am also finding they are producing much more complex documents and they are certainly more user friendly in that they are relevant to the learner, who has more choices to make. Grosseck states about our "new" pedagogy, which is what she calls Pedagogy 2.0: we must assume a new attitude, we must support new ideas, and we must use the new technologies. I agree wholeheartedly with her on this. It is the same as when we developed web 1.0 and paradigm shift was a huge concept. Web 2.0 uses different tools, but still pedagogy is pedagogy is pedagogy. This is a delightful presentation by Grosseck and a must see, enjoy.

McLoughlin and Lee have presented a comprehensive study of teaching and learning in the web 2.0 era. They speak about the proliferation of web applications and their relevances to learning and to learners' style of learning. This is the crucial part of web 2.0 for me, differentiated instruction via the web 2.0 tools. I want to see how the tools will let me and others realize our pedagogy and not the other way around. This is the crux of the authors research and for Grosseck as well. The pedagogy directs how the technology should be used instead of the technology driving the pedagogy. It is a matter of the teachers keeping up and getting on board or being their own worst roadblocks.

How do we manage technology in this knowledge society? In examining our pedagogies, relevancy is taking on a whole new look and approach. When we spoke of relevancy before we had courses like Social Justice, Cultural Studies, Participation in Government. Today with the new social networking tools of web 2.0, we see that relevancy becoming Connectivism. It is the links of minds and ideas via the tools of web 2.0. As such our pedagogy must make another shift utilizing the technologies of web 2.0. Pedagogy 2.0 moves us even closer to the learner centered environment. The authors do well to explain the need and to provide some examples of such sightings of pedagogy 2.0.

There are caveats, of course, and they can easily be discerned. Learner generated content alone creates so many questions of legitimacy, reliability, and scholarship. Teachers ability to adapt to the web 2.0 tools will bridge the divide between the learner and the instructor in terms of technology. A host of issues are raised by the authors. Not much different from web 1.0 days. But for me it really comes down to the teachers using the technology.

I found both the slideshow of Grosseck and the article by McLoughlin and Mark J. W. Lee fascinating, reminiscent of earlier days and very refreshing. By only concern is just as pedagogy 2.0 and web 2.0 are seemingly new, I hear about web 3.0 and second life. Is web 2.0 going to get a chance to take hold?

6 comments:

I totally agree with you that 'relevancy becoming Connectivism'.I think this is a main issue for us as educators surrounded by so many social networking sites and other online social presence tools (like microblogging).

Hi Ted, Just found your blog when blogsearching transformational education. I call it distributed content rather than pedagogy 2.0 because I think pedagogy implies control on the teachers side and we are moving to control in the learners hand. Others you may want to check out if you don't already know them: George Siemens at elearning and his connectivism theory and Clay Burrell and his blog "beyond school."

Thanks Ted for your interest in the article I wrote with Catherine McLoughlin. I viewed with much interest the slideshow by Gabriela, however I am concerned that much of the content appears to have been taken, without acknowledgement, from the Call for Chapters of our forthcoming book at http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~malee/web2book/

To our knowledge, the term "Pedagogy 2.0" was coined by us, and first appeared in this Call, as well as in a paper that we presented at the 2007 ASCILITE conference in Singapore: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

EST

About Me

I retired in Feb 2012 after teaching English since 1974 in private and public schools. I'm a father of three. I have twin granddaughters and a grandson. I have two younger sisters. I live in Woodstock, GA and I travel in a Scamp.
ted.nellen@gmail.com